V sathish v. 1. Additional Director General of Police' C I D '

Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the impugned proceedings dated 31-7 -2017 issued by 3rd respondent. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents : Gp FOR SERVICES-I (HOME) The Court made the following ORDER ..'t 1 THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGE SHBHEE WRIT PETITIONNo.2781 4o f2011 ORDER: wp'nal4 -2017 NBK, J MAP AKA The petitioner was an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the Fingerprtnt Bureau of Warangal (Rural)' He was dismissed from service by the 3'd respondent-Additional Director General of Police' vide Proceedings dated 3r.07.2017. petitioner cha,enges the proceedings dated il-0i.201'7 as arbitrary, biased, and proceduratly flawed enquiry process, and contrary to facts and law. He seeks reinstatement with full consequential benefits' by treating the suspension period as "on duty"' 2. Brief facts of the case' as per the writ affidavit' are that the petitioner joined the Indian Army in 2001 as a Craftsman in Telecommunication and Radio wing. Following his father's demise' he requested discharge to take care of his mother, as he was the only son The Army accepted his request and issued a "Combined Certihcate of Discharge and Recommendation for Civil Employment"' which classified him as a "non-ex-seryiceman" due to theinsufficienttengthofserviceandvoluntarydischarge.

2.1 On 26'02'2009, the Andhra Pradesh State Level Police Recruitment Board issued a notification catling for applications for several posts, including that of Stipendiary Trainee Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) (Code No. 33) and Stipendiary Trainee Police Constable (Communications) (Code No. 34). The petitioner, belonging to the BC-D community and being quatified for both posts, applied under Code No' 33' As per the notification' theupperagelimitwas25yearsasof0l.0T.200g,witha5-yearrelaxation for Bc candidates and an additional 3-year relaxation for individuals who 2 wp 21874_2077 N8K, J had served in the Army, Navy, or Air Force. The petitioner, being 30 years and' 22 days old on the cut-off date, claimed both relaxations. However, the application form lacked a specific field to indicate whether one had merely served in the armed forces for age relaxation purposes; it only provided a binary option to declare whether one was an ,.ex_serviceman.,,

2.2 The petitioner states that he may have ticked ,,yes,,in the ex_ serviceman corumn to claim age relaxation-not reservation-without any intent to mislead. crucia,y, he submitted his discharge certificate that clearry identified him as a ,.non_ex_seliceman,,. He emphasizes that he never claimed any benefit under the ex-serviceman quota, nor did he avail any exemptions reserved for such candidates during the physicai tests. He underwent the entire selection process, including physicat tests, five written papers (specific to both Code No. 33 and 34),a medical test, and a records verification. Upon successful completion of nine months of training, he was appointed as ASI on Dece,rber 12,2012, and served the departnent with distinction for over five years, eaming 52 official rewards and qualifoing in the All India Fingerprint Experts Examination in December 2015.

2.3 The petitioner states that issues arose only when, on 07.01.2016, he was served with a Memo dated 06.1 l.2lls,issued by the chairman of the Telangana State Level police Recruitment Board. The Memo alleged that he had availed age relaxation meant for ex_servicemen despite being declared a non-ex-serviceman and demanded an explanation. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 1r.01.20r6, reiterating that he had never claimed the ex-serviceman quota and had only sought age relaxation for his previous Army service, and that his transparency in submitting a "non-ex-serviceman,, discharge certificate proves his bona fides. :....I.,'-' 3 wp_27814 2017 NBK,I

2.4 However, the petitioner contends that before even receiving the Memo dated 06.11'2015, the Chairman had already directed the 3'd respondent-Additional DGP to initiate a disciplinary enquiry and explore criminal proceedings through a letter dated 16'11'2015' And' in compliance of the directions of the chairman, the 3d respondent addressed a letter dated 20.ll.2Ol5to the Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct an enquiry' which reportediy concluded with a recommendation for dismissal' The petitioner was suspended vide Proceedings dated 02'03'2016' and served a Charge Memo on lg'04'2016' alleging that he engaged in "reprehensible conducl." by producing a "non-ex-serviceman ce(illcate" yet securing appointment under the "ex-sertriceman" quota' The petitioner strongly disputes this characterization, arguing that the charge itself acknowledges that he submitted a "non-ex-serviceman" certificate' which contradicts any claimofmisrepresentation.Heasseftsthattheapplicationform-which remains undisclosed to him despite repeated requests-was never part of the list of documents shared with him during the enquiry' On 02'05'2016' he submitted a detailed explanation denying any intent to deceive and requested the authorities to drop the proceedings'

2.5 The petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O'A' No' 98912016 challenging his suspension' [n their counter-affidavit, the respondent-authorities admitted that he had submitted :;";T:ffiffi : H,:"*" .,':::il:':;.T'"il',:;::Jffi; departmentaldocumentshadbeendestroyed,therebyprecludingaction against the responsible officers' Despite this' disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner continued' \ 4 wp .27a74 .2017 N8K, J

2.6 When O.A. No. 9g912016 was dismissed, he filed w'P'No'2203g of 2016 before this court, wherein this court, by order dated 08'07 '2016 directed the department to comprete the enquiry within three months, however, the respondent authorities failed to complete the enquiry within the stipulated three months' time. The petitioner contends that the enquiry process is flarved due to procedurar inegularities. of the three listed witnesses, i.e., Mohd. Faheemuddin, pendela Devaiah, and p. Sunil Kumar, only two were examined. Faheemuddin, though critical to the case, was dropped without explanation and substituted by Mr. srinivas, who was not involved in the original recruitment and merely endorsed Faheemuddin,s earlier statement; and the other two witnesses admitted the unavailability of records and did not allege any fraud on the part of the peritioner. petitioner submitted his expranation to the enquiry report on 20.12.2016,but claims that the report, submitt ed' on 07.02.2017 was biased and influenced by the preliminary findings of a superior officer, the Additionar Superintendent of Police, which preiudiced the Enquiry Officer, the Depury Superintendent of Police' The petitioner received the enquiry repoft under proceedings dated 16.03.2017, and submitted further explanations on 20.03.2017 and 07 '04 '2017 ' incruding official documents and regar precedents showing that age relaxation is avairabre even to "non-ex-seryicemen,, who have rendered Army service' He arso cited a Gazette Notification dated 10.10.20 12, and. left ers from EME o ffi c ial s dated 0 4.0 4.20 I 7, and O 6.0 4.20 I T,supporring the position that in the absence of suitable ex-servicemen, non-ex-servicemen could be considered

2.7 On 12.07.2017, the Director, Sainik Welfare Board, forwarded a letter from the Ministry of Defence to the Director General of police, TelangyLa, urging fair consideration of the petitioner,s case and cautioning 't'trl' 5 wp_27814 2017 NBK,I against punishing him for errors not of his making' These developments' however, were allegedly ignored by the disciplinary authority' which went on to issue the dismissal order dated 3l'07'2017' The petitioner further contendsthattheenquiryofficer,srelianceon''column8''oftheapplication form-which was neither furnished to him nor introduced into evidence- violates the principles of fair hearing' He alleges contradiction in the department's position: on one hand, it claims that records were destroyed; on the other, it asserts that he marked himself as an ex-serviceman'

2.8 The petitioner asserts that the charge against him lacks evidentiary foundation and that any suggestion that he misrepresented facts is based on assumptions, without any proof' He states that the core of his case has always been the right to age relaxation based on Army service' not reserwationundertheex-servicemanquota.Thepetitionerinsiststhatthe entire disciplinary action was conducted with prejudice, relying on irrelevant material, and that the dismissal is arbitrary and illegal' 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the Additional Director General of Police (arrayed as 3'd respondent in the writ petition)' It is stated in the countefthatthepetitioner,sselectionasAssistantSub-Inspector(ASI)inthe Fingerprint Bureau (FPB) under the Ex-Servicemen quota was obtained through a deliberate misrepresentation of his eligibility' and that the entire writisanattempttomisleadtheHon,bleCourtintoovertumingdisciplinary proceedingsthatarelegallysoundandfactuallyjustified.Itiscontendedthat thepetitionerfalselydeclaredhimselfasanEx-Servicemaninordertosecure a reservation-based selection under the notification No. 8S/R&T/Gen.1/2009 dated 26.02.2009, issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Level Police Recruitment Board. lt is contended that the petiti-oner, who applied with \ I 6 wp 27E1,4_2o17 NBK, J with his application an ..Army and Recommendation for Civil Ex_serviceman,,. registration number 31g630, enclosed Combined Certificate of Discharge Employment" which expricitly crassified him as a ,,Non Despite this, the petirioner marked ,,yes,, in Column No. (g) of the application form, thereby fraudulentry claiming reservation under the Ex- Servicemen category. According to the selection list dated 12.07.2011, the petitioner, who belongs to the BC_D community, secured 195.50 marks and ranked 334 from the Karimnagar Range. The curoff marks for selection under the Open Category and BC_D were 254 and.246,respectively; and the petitioner therefore wourd not have been serected at all had he not farsely claimed Ex-servicemen status.

3.1 It is contended that the petitioner enclosed a discharge certificate stating that he was transferred to pension establishment and discharged "on compassionate grounds at his own request before fulfi,ing the conditions of his enrormenr under Item IrI (rv)." Under Rule 2(r6) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, such adischarge does not qualif! an individuar tbr Ex-Servicemen status. This rure mandates that only those who are discharged after completing the terms of their engagement or tmder special qualifring circumstances are eligible for the reservation; and the petitioner was therefore ineligible for Ex-Servicemen reservation from the outset.

3.2 It is contended that, following a representation dated 14'09'2015 submitted by one sri N. Kesava Reddy of Hanamkonda, which alleged that the petitioner had been wrongry selected under. Ex-Servicemen quota, the service register of the petitioner was examined, and a preriminary enquiry was ordered and conducted by Sk. Nawab John, Addl. sp, cID, TS, -T wP _27aM -7OL7 NBK, J Hyderabad, and the findings were communicated vide letter dated l6.o2.2ol6,which confirmed that the petitioner had indeed claimed the Ex- Servicemen status despite submitting a certihcate explicitly stating he was not an Ex-Serviceman. Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension effective 08.03'2016' A Memorandum of Charges for major penalty proceedings under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules' t991 (as adapted by Telangana) was issued' During the enquiry' key witnesses were examined. Sri Mohd' Faheemuddin' Manager at the DIG's Office' Karimnagar Range, confirmed that the petitioner had applied under the Ex- Servicemen quota and enclosed a ceftificate indicating "Non Ex- Serviceman" status. This was further coroborated by Sri P' Devaiah' Junior Assistant, and Sri Sunil Kumar, Senior Assistant at the TSLPRB office'' who noted that the petition from Sri N' Kesava Reddy led to the verification of thepetitioner'sdocumentsanddiscoveryoftheirregularity'Themain inquiry report concluded that the charges were proven' The petitioner was found to have committed two irregularities' i'e'' 1) claiming reservation under ex-serviceman quota knowingty that he is "Non Ex-Serviceman" and' 2) wilfu1ly providing false information in the application form' Further' there is no record or any prior petition by the petitioner requesting to review or amend his application, further undermining his credibility'

3.3 It is contended that though the petitioner referenced a Gazette notification dated 01 '04'2017 stating that vacancies under the Ex- Servicemen quota could be filled by non-Ex-Servicemen if no qualified candidateswereavailable,however,itdoesnotapplytoacandidatewho misrepresentshisstatusatthetimeofapplication.Itiscontendedthatthe letterreceivedfromtheChiefRecordOfficer,olCRecords'affirmsthatthe petitionerwasdischargedon3|.o3.2ooT,afterservingsixyearsandT0days \\ 8 wp 27814-2017 N8( J under Rule 13(3) II (IV) of Army Rules, 1954, i.e., on his own request for compassionate reasons, again confirming his non_Ex_Seruiceman status. It is contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in a fair manner, and based on oral and documentary evidence, without any prooedural lapses. The respondent also refutes the argument that responsibility fbr the improper scrutiny of the petitioner,s apprication lies with the recruitment authorities, asserting instead that the original records had been destroyed and no specific accountability could be fixed. It is contended that the petitioner misrepresented materiar facts in his application and benefited from a reservation quota to which he was not entitled. The disciplinary proceedings, including the suspension and framing of charges, were based on an exhaustive inquiry and are lega y sound, and therefore there is no merit in the writ petition. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, in response to the counter affltdavit, mainly reiterating the averments made in his writ affidavit. In essence, the petitioner contends that his dismissal from service pursuant to proceedings dated 3r .07 .2017 was illegar, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of naturar justice. He asserts that he never claimed reservation under the ex-servicemen quota but only sought age relaxation based on prior military service, and that he submitted a non-ex-serniceman discharge certificate voluntarily. The reply affidavit emphasizes thar the disciplinary proceedings were predetermined and prejudiced, as there was simultaneous issuance of the charge memo and appointment of the enquiry ofhcer on 19'04'2016' The petitioner fufther contends that the enquirl.was vitiated by bias, procedural irregurarities, and reriance on inadmissible or irrerevant witness statements, particularry since key records had already been destroyed in 2013' It is contended that there is no concrete evidence proving that he 9 wp _21a1 4 -2017 NSK, J misrepresented his status, and further contended that the hndings against him were based on assumptions rather than substantive material' 5. Heard Mr. J. Sudheer, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and Mr' A' Satya Sree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) for the respondents. Perused the record' Leamed counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order 6. of dismissal dated 31'07'2017 is arbitrary' violative of principles of natural justice, and illegat. While making submissions in tine with the writ affidavit' reamed counser essentialry contends that the petitioner never claimed reservation under the ex-seruicemen quota' but merely sought age relaxation permissible under Clause 7(B)(b)(iv) of the recruitment notification by submitting an anny discharge certificate clearly showing him as a "non-ex- serviceman". [t is contended that the petitioner underwent physical efficiency tests as a regular candidate and was never informed' either in the notification or in his appointment order' that he was selected under the ex- servicemen quota. It is fuither contended that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated based on a complaint that was neither disclosed to the petitioner nor verified through a proper enquiry' and that the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Additional S'P'' dated 16'02'2016' was one-sided and predetermined, relying solely on statements of ministerial stalf who were themselves implicated but later exonerated due to destruction of recruitment records ort26-02.2013' It is contended that the enquiry process is biased and prejudiced as the charge memo and the appointment of the enquiry officer hasbeensimultaneousi.e.,onlg.04.20l6.Learnedcounselalsocontends thattheenquiryofficerexceededthescopeofthechargesandreliedon statemqrtsofwitnessesunrelatedtotherecruitmentprocess,whiledenying 10 wp 21874_2011 NBK,I the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses such as Fahimuddin. It is contended that the findings were unsupported by any materiar evidence, and the petitioner cannot be penalised in the absence of any concrete proof of misrepresentar.ion or fraud. Learned counser assairs the departmental proceedings, on the ground of procedural lapses, scope of charges, and violation of principles of natural justice. He relies on 1) Allahabad Bank vs' Krishna Narayan Tiwaril to contend that the court can interfere ifthere is vioration ofprincipres ofnaturar justice in the disciplinary proceedings; 2) state of Assam vs. Mohan chandra Kanta2 tocontend that there should be reriabre evidence to sustain the charge and that in the instant case the impugned punishment was based on assumption and not prool, 3) state of uttaranchar vs' Kharak singh3 to contend that the petitioner was not fumished with the required documents, and mere denial for the sake of deniar is not an answer to the specific allegations in the affidav it; 4) Narincler Mohan Arya vs' United India Insurance co. Ltdto contend that the courls can interfere when the impugned action is based on no evidence,. 5) Khem chand vs' Union of India5 and state of flttar pradesh vs. om prakash to contend that in a domestic enquiry, faimess in the procedure is a part of the principles of naturar just ice; 6) K.L. Tripathi vs. state Bank of IndiaT to contend that exercising of discretionary power involves two erements, i.e., (i) objective and (ii) subjective, and existence ofthe exercise ofan objective element is a condition precedent for exercise of subjective element; 7) sawai singh vs state of Rajasthans to contendthat the Hon'ble supreme court held G upta6 2 SCC 308 1(2017) , (1972)4 SCC (N) 11 -= AtR 1972 SC 2535 3 (200s) 8 scc 236 4 (2006) 4 scc 713 s AtR 1958 sc aoo 6 (1969) 3 scc 77s ? (1984) 1 SCC 43 8 (1986) 3 scc 4s4 11 wp 2tau-2o17 NBK,I that it is not possible to lay down any rigid rules of the principles of the principles ofnatural justice which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case but the concept offair play in action is the basis'' 8) Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Polices tocontend that suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry' and the Court can interfere with the findings of fact of any Tribunat or authority in certain circumstances ; 9) Sher Bahadur vs {Jnion of Indiatl to contend that the evidence has to be relevant and sufficient to link the charged officer with the misconduct alleged; and 10) Vikas Pratap Singh vs' State of Chhattisgarhtt to contend . Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for the respondents contended 1 . that the dismissal of the petitioner by order dated ll'07'2017 was lawful' justified, and in strict conformity with the applicabte service rules and principles of natural justice' It is contended that the petitioner had secured appointment in the police department under the ex-servicemen quota despite not being eligible, as evidenced by his own admission that he was a non-ex- serviceman. The respondents pointed out that during the verification process' it came to light that the petitioner had marked "Yes" in Column No'8 of the application form, indicating his claim for reservation under the ex- servicemen category' lt was argued that this false representation materially affected his eligibility and selection' as he had availed age relaxation meant specifically for ex-servicemen' The respondents maintained that the charge memowasissuedafterapreliminaryenquiryconductedbytheAdditional Superintendent of Police, CID' Telangana' who recommended disciplinary action based on the available materiaf including the statements of ministerial 'q ORDER WP.No.27B14 of 2O1t DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1(, q 1A